I K MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us, started his service career as a Sub-Auditor in the erstwhile Holkar Estate, Indore with effect from 5th February, 1943. Subsequently on reorganisation of States in the year 1956 the appellant continued to serve in the office of Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. The appellant while working as Auditor was accorded selection grade. However, subsequently the appellant was compulsorily retired from service by notice dated 23rd of August, 1974 issued under Rule 48(b) of C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(2.) The appellant challenged the impugned notice compulsorily retiring him from service by filing a Civil Suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Gwalior for a declaration that the order compulsorily retiring him from service is illegal and inoperative, being arbitrary and mala fide. The trial Court decreed the suit and the aforesaid decree was affirmed by the First Lower Appellate Court. The High Court in the Second Appeal filed at the instance of the respondents set aside the decree and judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding that the order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service did not suffer from infirmity either on account of arbitrariness or mala fides. That is how the plaintiff appellant has come up in appeal before us.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant reiterated the argument advanced before the Court below characterising the order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service as arbitrary and mala fide. It was urged that the service record of the appellant being unblemished, the impugned order compulsorily retiring the appellant deserves to be held as arbitrary. The law in regard to the compulsory retirement of the Government servants in terms of service rule is almost settled by now by number of decisions of this Court. Repeatedly it has been held that the power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of the service rules is absolute provided the concerned authority forms an opinion bona fide that it is necessary to pass order of compulsory retirement in the public interest. This Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299 after considering the number of decisions of the Apex Court referred the following principles for testing the validity of order of compulsory retirement.